- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Millions of innocent lives were lost as a result of the vague and nearly useless warning given by the US. Japan would have gotten the message even if the city was completely empty (obviously that is not possible) instead of civilians dying in the demonstration. https://www.atomicheritage.org/
By the time the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was going to surrender. The Japanese Imperial Navy was left with only one capital ship after intense US Navy raids on Japanese military shipyards. Without a naval force, Japan was nothing in the Pacific War because it was mostly fought in the Pacific Ocean and thus could not defend themselves. This means that Japan would have surrendered or faced annihilation even without the bombings.
While the bombing may have saved lives in the long run, up to 200,000 innocent Japanese citizens were brutally killed as a result of them. The US hastily chose Nagasaki and Hiroshima to be the unfortunate targets of the bombing because of their importance to the Japanese military and because they were so far not air raided like most other major Japanese cities. Before it was decided to drop the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the US planned on bombing Tokyo Bay. This would have resulted in less casualties because Tokyo Bay is FAR less inhabited than Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also, the Us could have proven their point and dropped the bomb to end the war if they had given more advanced warning to the citizens. In the US leaflets to warn the citizens to evacuate, the US did not mention that they would be subject to atomic bombing and did not tell them which city would be affected directly.
While the US does have many allies, these countries may be hesitant to help out once they see how reckless North Korea is. In a recent statement, North Korea threatened countries that would choose to side with the US, specifically the Australia, saying "Should Australia continue to follow the US in imposing military, economic and diplomatic pressure upon the DPRK despite our repeated warnings, they will not be able to avoid a disaster."
While I agree that nobody WANTS war with North Korea, that does not mean that it will not happen. North Korea has repeatedly threatened the United States, claiming that "The entire US mainland is within our firing range and if the US dares to invade our sacred territory even an inch it will not escape our severe punishment in any part of the globe." [http://www.sbs.com.
The USA should be concerned about North Korea because the country has repeatedly threatened the United States' mainland and its territories. In one such statement, North Korea stated that "The entire US mainland is within our firing range and if the US dares to invade our sacred territory even an inch, it will not escape our severe punishment in any part of the globe. [http://www.sbs.com.
I agree that the veto can be, and has been, used in a biased way, but there are also other members of the Security Council to ensure that the veto is used fairly. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/
I agree with your comment that the votes are helpful to prevent the United States from abusing its power. In addition to this, the checks and balances go the opposite way. For example, with the Syrian crisis, Russia unfairly vetoed relief efforts four times, claiming that the efforts were damaging to its ally, Bashar al-Assad. The veto power helps to control these types of bias. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/
The veto powers of permanent members of the UN security should not be revoked because the aforementioned members can use their veto to promote important causes that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. For example, if a member observes an issue that the rest of the United Nations has not, they can put it into a vote knowing that it will be vetoed, just to show support for the topic and to create a record of it. In addition to this, members can use the veto to ensure that the UN maintains its founding principles of international cooperation. The permanent members can do this by vetoing a ruling supported by others if the ruling goes against these concepts.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!